ಠ_ಠ

ಠ_ಠ is in fact actually mute in real life. He has learned to communicate through facial expressions indicating his thoughts or aims. And as we all know, for all intents and purposes, the internet has only ever produced two reactions in people. "LOL" and ಠ_ಠ.

This is the type of article that I don't think anyone can "gloat" about. Sure, if it is true it casts a dark shadow on the MSU basketball team, but the victim was still sexually assaulted. Doing dumb things with fire crackers or punching engineering students is one thing (though obviously the latter is worse than the former), but nobody wins with alleged rape. Thanks for the link, but I don't see how anything good will come from this story.

I'd disagree that good can't come out of this. If the players are charged and prosecuted to the full extent of the law maybe it would deter others who think they are above the law from committing the same crime.

I totally agree that the charges, if true, should be prosecuted and the parties punished to the fullest extent of the law. My point is more that if the OP wanted to highlight some "failing" of MSU through this story, I don't see that being appropriate. It is just a sad story all around.

... inepptitude. Either way, it seems like an enormous mistake not to pursue this further. The girls last quote is kinda heartwrenching. What she must be going through right now is horrible... the self-doubt, the helplessness, the fear. Just sad.

He told investigators that when it was clear from the victim’s statements that she did not want to have sex, he stopped. However, the other player continued “despite her reluctance and statements that she did not want to continue.” The victim confirms that player’s account...

...The player then said a second time that he stopped when she said to, but the other player “coaxed” her into continuing the sexual activity.

Either you didn't read the article fully or you don't know the meaning of infer. It's pretty explicit that she told them to stop. One guy did, the other guy coerced her to continue. This was the guys version. Not hers.

This statement “despite her reluctance and statements that she did not want to continue" followed by “'coaxed' her into continuing" doesn't jive with your characterization of the entire incident as "no means no".

I'm not saying that no assault occurred, only that the article leads me to believe that it didn't occur. Everything we've read is third or fourth hand knowledge. More evidence needs to come to light other than hearsay. Unlike you, my mind isn't made up about what really happened.

Really? My position is that it should be looked into further and reexamined, indicating that the stories provided warrant further scrutiny of the handling of the case. I go so far as to agree that the names shouldn't be released until charges are pressed. You read one article and say it's not assault. Whose mind is made up in this?

Uhhh, I would think you should re-read the article. It is rather clear the the alleged victim was not a willing participant and the MSU player corroborated her statement to police.

During his interview with detectives, the one player who volunteered a statement corroborated much of the victim’s statement, the report shows. He told investigators that when it was clear from the victim’s statements that she did not want to have sex, he stopped. However, the other player continued “despite her reluctance and statements that she did not want to continue.” The victim confirms that player’s account.

The player told detectives he was concerned “over the girl’s reaction to the circumstances,” noting she was “timid” and “not aggressive.” The player then admitted to detectives that he understood how the woman believed she was not welcome to leave the room, in part because she kept referencing that the two were “bigger” than her.

The player then said a second time that he stopped when she said to, but the other player “coaxed” her into continuing the sexual activity.

The player told detectives that he and the other player should apologize because he felt the two had “disrespected” the woman.

Show me where I said I would convict in this case, based on ANYTHING. You are being defensive because I called you out for being hypocritical. I made no statements at all about what I thought happened or didn't happen, did I?

I didn't say it was rape... or wasn't rape. That is where you go off the rails repeatedly. I merely pointed out that you were doing the same thing (hypocritically) that you accused others of doing. Period.

Show me where I take a stand on the case as you have done repeatedly... show me one instance...

Instead of saying "no assault occurred", I should've said, "I'm not convinced an assault occurred". In other words, based on the article, I've reached no conclusion.

And you're so misunderstanding the other post, I don't know where to begin. It was an attempt to point out the ridiculousness of your charge. I'm being hypocritical as much as you are advocating a conviction based on hearsay... which is to say, not at all.

During his interview with detectives, the one player who volunteered a statement corroborated much of the victim’s statement, the report shows. He told investigators that when it was clear from the victim’s statements that she did not want to have sex, he stopped. However, the other player continued “despite her reluctance and statements that she did not want to continue.” The victim confirms that player’s account.

I read that as at least one of the players got the idea that she didn't want to be having sex. To me, that means she said, "No." Perhaps not the word no or stop or whatever, but it sounds like it was pretty clear she meant No.

that means she said, "No." Perhaps not the word no or stop or whatever, but it sounds like it was pretty clear she meant No.

One-hundred percent agreed.

However, the same source says she was subsequently "coaxed" into continuing, which means she subsequently said, "Yes." Perhaps not the word yes or continue or whatever, but it sounds like it was pretty clear she meant Yes.

I only know as much about the situation as you do. Simply pointing out that it's all hearsay for now and everyone's jumping to conclusions.

IANAL, but I believe that if someone says no and then later is "coaxed" into saying yes, that it still means no.

The player told detectives he was concerned “over the girl’s reaction to the circumstances,” noting she was “timid” and “not aggressive.” The player then admitted to detectives that he understood how the woman believed she was not welcome to leave the room, in part because she kept referencing that the two were “bigger” than her.

Did she mean no but was too afraid and just gave up? That's still rape in my book. If one is too afraid to fight, it still doesn't mean one agrees with what is happening. Maybe she thought being raped was better than having her face beaten in and then raped? You weren't there. You can't judge. I wasn't there, and I can't judge, but she was there and came forward to the police with her account, and the player who came forward with his account was there, and those both sound like she said no.

Seems quite inappropriate to mock cross-examine the victim during her first meeting. This is something that should not have been done until much later, when the prosecutor was prepping the victim for trial.

Sounds like a situation in which the prosecutor did not think she could "win" the case, so she decided not to proescute, whether she thought a crime occurred or not.

The article makes it seem like she was the only reason the case didn't move forward. From the way it made it sound like the victim was treated during their first meeting, its hard for me to believe she has that much power over the decision. She has been doing it for a long time though, so maybe she just wants to weed out cases she knows will be lost.

It's not their job to weed out cases they think can't be won. If someone presses charges, and the police gather evidence that supports those charges, then you go to trial. You don't try to talk the victim out of pressing charges based on a personal opinion of the strength of the case.

I agree with you. As many prosecutors as there are out there that want to make a name for themselves by winning a high profile case, there's a similar number that are scared shitless of losing a case against a quasi-celebrity and looking like a fool.

It's pretty standard practice to basically cross-examine a victim before deciding to sign a warrant. Prosecutors have to think in terms of reasonable doubt. It's easy for us to read a report and think "yeah they did it," but when you put your one girl on the stand in front of the box of 12 and a shark of a defense attorney (and you know these guys would get sharks for lawyers) the tables turn quickly.

Prosecutors are the ones who decided to charge cases, not victims. If they don't think they can win a case, there's no reason to waste time, energy, resources and taxpayer dollars to drag a trial out for 6 months.

short of her full on recanting her story, it is not up to a rape victim to explain to the DA how she will present the case. can you imagine if children were expected to explain how they would prove they had been violated?

what's more, any sort of believability issues would be considered "grey/in her favor" when her story lined up almost explicitly with one of the player's own version of the stories.

If it's up to you to sign a couple of felony warrants on two kids that will absolutely change the rest of their life, you better be absolutely sure this is a case worth taking on. I am totally in favor of cross-examining the victim, because it's better that it happens behind closed doors as opposed to in open court in front of a rabid defense attorney.

Children are a little bit different, but the process is the same. Lawyers that handle child abuse cases go to countless classes and seminars every year to learn how to talk to children. You don't grill them, but you learn skills that help you communicate with children. It's only those highly trained lawyers that get to decide whether that child's story holds up in a trial. The same applies for a case like this.

It appears these guys are in the Roethlisberger mode. It has got to be so hard for the police in these situations......so let's see you got drunk and then went back to the basketball players apartments for what purpose? Clearly she has the right to say no, but mixing 20 year olds with booze makes these lines awfully blurry.

but unlike the Roethlesberger cases, she has nothing to gain financially from these relatively poor amateurs. At best, all she could hope for is justice administered without a) having her name dragged through the mud, b) having her classmates hate her for ruining the basketball season, c) having to relive the incident in a courtroom. Those are some pretty heavy cons against pursuing prosecution, yet she still wants to. I have a feeling this won't be the last we hear of this story, and it's ugly no matter what school is involved.

I think the classless Sparty fanbase would blame and harass the victim to a point where she would have to transfer to an outstate school to continue her education. It sucks that a young woman as victimized; it's far worse that she will be denied her day in court because the perpetratrors play on the basketball team.

As for anyone who wants to compare it to the Michigan case (which, nod nod wink wink, was covered by Sparty Dave Birkett), consensual sex seems a lot more believable in a one-on-one situation than a two-on-one scenario.

I think the case should be prosecuted, and the story should come out. Let justice be done either way.

My God, did you see what Nike tried to do to the MSU uniforms, and what they still got away with? Adidas, a curse? Not so much, actually- if you want to see a real curse, check out the Oregon unis or the Ohio State 'commemorative' unis they put on for the Michigan game last year. Srsly.

"I wouldn't be talking with ur program."??? We spent a few too many hours stretching and we're being compared to a program that allegedly has players getting away with (possibly) rape? Yeah, your buddy needs to get a grip on what really matters...

No that's incorrect. Refer to my response to bronxblue to see how I feel about the story and what should happen. Posting someone else's irrational response to what happened does not turn into "pointing and laughing" about something as serious as sexual assault. I posted it because I was appalled at the response. About as appalled as I am to think that you would think I find it funny in any way. Sorry you couldn't figure that out.

Also, to cover legal bases.....it is only an accusation of sexual assault. You have no grounds to say that she was actually sexually assaulted.

I said it was a story about a girl being sexually assaulted. Which it is. Whether that story is true or not could be debated, though we have no evidence beyond this story, but that IS what the story is about. Sorry if I should have written "allegedly," but the story itself covers those bases.

Back to my original point, what exactly is your point then for posting his/her response to you texting him about this story? Would you come post if you had sent the story to a Wisconsin fan and they said that? I can't see your original post's intent being anything other than "OMG look how horrible Sparty fans are."

I think if he had said "I bet Sparty's response would be..." vs "This is what one of them actually said" it'd be different. The former is clearly designed to poke while the latter (at least to me) is just sad and isn't even in the same frame of reference as "OMG look how horrible Sparty fans are" it's just a recognition that that's what his friend (or ex-friend as it may seem) said. I suppose if you want to take it as "OMG..." then that's on you but, at least to me, I'm just disappointed in that particular person. I'd bet we'd have a similar response if the shoe were on the other foot from some equally douchey Michigan fan (yeah, they do exist and, no, they don't have a positive MGoPoint account ;)

My point was more of a *facepalm* combined with the fact that this particular friend is usually a good representation of what most Spartan fans seem to believe; suffice to say I was surprised that this was his reaction. If that's the consensus feeling, it's pretty sad in my opinion.

That being said, I don't really care what you see the original post's intent to be. What I do care is that you think I'm making light of a situation, which is not the case at all.

At least someone (Michigan Messenger) seems to realize that letting people off the hook because they are basketball players isn't ok... If the evidence is really as damming as what they present those guys should absolutely beyond a shadow of a doubt be prosecuted...

In all seriousness, I doubt there is some grand conspiracy. This is, however, a difficult situation for the prosecutor because it is not just a couple of average joe's, but a couple of high profile basketball players. Like it or not, they do and will get some special considerations.

I just don't think this is true or not. If anything, a lot of prosecutors would be jumping at the chance to handle a case against high profile individuals like these guys would be. I think if you copy the fact pattern and put in Joe Schmo and John Doe instead of MSU basketball players, the warrant gets denied all the same.

That's why I don't think there's any indication of favortism on either side. Prosecutors know they could get screwed coming at it from either angle.

(To be fair, I don't think Nifong wanted to drill those kids because they were lacross players, I think he wanted to drill them to look nice and tough under IMMENSE public pressure that he got right at the beginning of the case before the facts came out. But what came first, the chicken or the egg right?)

There appears to be a serious disconnect between the tone the writer wrote with, everything that happened, and what actually constitutes sexual assualt. Although that's to be expected from a writer trying to break a story, something Michigan knows quite a bit about. It'd be interesting to see the actual police reports (which i assume lack bias), but obviously we can't do that.

MSU Police Department forwarded the report to the prosecutor’s office with a recommendation that the men be charged with Criminal Sexual Conduct 1 — the most serious level of sexual assault under state law

There's a reason the police don't make those decisions. They're not incompetent, but those reports assume the statements are true and then recommend what they think the corresponding crime would be.

That said, I've personally seen cases prosecuted for sexual assault on less, so I really wonder what went down here. The prosecutor's interview/cross-examination, if true (and in fairness, there's no reason to think it is) was wildly inappropriate.

The only people I see here jumping to conclusions here are siding against the alleged victim (which is just as unfair as siding against the players). And I don't think anyone is happy to hear about this.

Any way you look at this, its sad. First off all, why would the girl go back to their room and take off her shirt? I mean, seriously? Just from what I read, sounds kind of like she didn't say no because somehow they 'coaxed' back into doing the nasty. It does sounds like they knew she was uncomfortable, but they continued anyway. So stupid and sick. Just amazes me how naive kids can be, specifically this girl. I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't prosecute. Someone I know was blatantly drugged and raped against her will and they never prosecuted. Never even tried.

I think the decision not to prosecute probably has more to do with the prosecutor's feelings on whether or not they can get a conviction. This is unfortunately how a lot of these things play out. It's seen as a waste of money if the victim is not good on the stand or not believable or there might be some doubt that she said to stop. I disagree with this, but I can understand it.

You have one of the alleged perpetrators saying to the detectives "she said no and he kept going." You prosecute that case, beyond a shadow of a doubt. You could get that statement in. That is a conviction waiting to happen. Incredible that they are not bringing charges.

That statement is from an alleged perpetrator. When he says it, he's implicating the other alleged perpetrator. The only way to get that statement in is to have him testify. The only way he's testifying is if the Prosecutor cuts him a deal or drops him as a possible defendant. That guy is not gonna waive his 5th Amendment right just to rat out his teammate. Anyway, I think this is the part where I say boom! lawyered, but that just seems mean on something so nerdy and nuanced.

It's a little different. What you said is correct. A person can give a statement after waiving his right to remain silent. And that statement can be used against him.

HOWEVER, that statement can't be used against the OTHER guy, which is what this statement would be used to prove. It violates the OTHER guy's right to confront his witnesses. (Which is why you need suspect number 1 to testify, so that the OTHER guy can confront him.)

So why wouldn't the obvious thing be to cut the guy who gave the statement a deal? Just asking because I don't know how this works. If his account is consistent with the woman's (and I think it said she confirmed that the one guy stopped), why not offer him a deal or completely remove him as a defendant and go after the guy who, by at least two accounts, kept going even after it was made clear she wanted to stop?

That's the next obvious step. You are now qualified to go to law school. If one teammate testifies against the other, it's a much stronger case. Of course by the date of trial, the one guy might think "I'm not gonna screw my teammate over" and completely change his story. Ah the joys of trial strategy.

And the step after that is filing obstruction of justice charges against the guy who lied (either to investigators or on the stand). You also proceed to examine your (now hostile) witness and attempt to persuade the jury that he was telling the truth when first interviewed. Expect the cops to testify that he was completely believable when he admitted his role and told them what his friend did.

I think the prosecutor should proceed without assuming that the second actor is going to lie, thereby committing a felony with all the serious consequences that attach to that.

2 weeks ago. His frosh son stays at this dorm. He said the people involved were covering this up including police. The 2 slimy spartans mom's visited the next day. I'm sure this won't be in the local papers or on the news. Pitiful. Izzo should cut they guys loose like Dantanio did ... sorry didn't. Yah, htey will play this year.

I'm curious as who could be involved? I realize the suite mate is obviously not going to say anything to incriminate the players, but you're suggesting members of the police force/DAs office are involved?

If the MSUPD was involved in a cover-up, wouldn't this be the worst cover-up ever? They forwarded some pretty strong statements to the prosecutor and a recommendation to charge. I'm really not sure how you look at any of the reported facts and find grounds to suspect a cover-up.

What should Izzo do here? He gets words that his players are involved in a he-said/she-said shindig. The prosecutor says no crime is provable. You make the players do some extra running for (I assume) drinking underage and putting themselves in a bad situation (and frankly for being creepy). I don't see any grounds for dismissal there.

Obviously, this will change if further facts emerge, but I can't see where anyone at State mishandled this based on the facts as presented.

all that really needs to be said is it's sad a young woman was left feeling this way after the night's events. this should be more of an eye opener about how far the male gender has to go to prevent women from feeling this way than an MSU/UM football/basketball issue.

also... fwiw... well done MGoBoard for keeping it classy. pales in comparison to the RCMB reaction.

Regardless of what happened initially, at some point even one of the men acknowledged that the interaction was not consensual. It is not like it is the two of their stories against hers. Generally people don't fabricate incriminating evidence against themselves.

Why didn't she scream? Maybe she thought that the guys would just get away with it because of who they are? Or that she would be blamed for being intoxicated and sending the wrong message? Not a bad guess, since that seems to be what happened.

On a side note, I became very distracted at the end of the story when I realized that there is a person with the name Murgittroyd.

If she tells them 'no' and slaps one of them, and is coaxed, but appears to not want something, and has mentioned that the two of them are bigger than she is, etc., wouldn't the rational human being deduct that there's WAY too much gray area in the situation?

Who finds themselves presented with those indicators and proceeds?!

I have no idea what constitutes the technical legal definition of saying 'no' in this situation, but I think it's crystal clear about what constitutes the technical definition of 'complete and total dipshit move' on the part of the players.

And no, it's not 'dipshit' because of the consequences that could/would come to them in case anyone thinks that's what I'm implying.

One would think athletes living in the dorm could each get their own women to fully consent if they were looking to have sex with a female. I mean, if they're into that sort of thing (having sex w/o another dude there) then cool, but the fact that there are two of them and one of her makes it seem that much more likely that she wasn't consenting.You have to have no brain to think that this story getting out would reflect well on you if you're one of those players.

The decision not to prosecute was hasty. Prosecutor asked girl a couple of tough questions, girl starts crying, prosecutor says 'no way I'm winning this case if she can't even handle these questions.' It happens, but she should've had the suspects brought in again for questioning and hammered to see if either of them would crack. They might give up something that could be used against them, and one already gave an incriminating statement- it's worth a shot.

At the same time, at no point in this did she give any indication that the players physically threatened her, and is there any reason she didn't yell/scream to attract attention to the situation? I've been in Wonders, and sounds carry, believe me. The police report seems damning, but the prosecutor says he has other information that wasn't in there. I think this is a case where the decision truly is agonizing, but the prosecutor's office didn't seem too interested in pushing the investigation. At the very least, they could have put forth a little more effort- and that effort would've helped support a decision either way. I'm pretty disappointed with them, because it looks like a coverup as it stands now.

Meh, sounds like something shady went down, everyone was drunk, and things went too far. I wonder how clear this girl was about her unwillingness throughout the ordeal. I don't think it's a totally clear cut case.

Hopefully these young people learned something from this. I know I would be disappointed if this happened with kids from Michigan but from what I saw here I'm not sure it's worth ruining someone's life over.